Gostei demais desse vídeo e tive que embebedar aqui. E eu quis dizer “incorporar” (sério, parem de adaptar termos estrangeiros quando já existem traduções perfeitamente apropriadas para seu significado).

O vídeo é um documentário falso (também chamados de “mockumentaries”) mostrando uma visão futurista da existência anterior dos Beatles.

O que você faria se fosse seguido por um “demonio”  desde de sua infância ? Como você ficaria após um tempo ?

É isso que o filme Atividade Paranormal aborda a vida de um casal que é atormentados por uma presença maligna.

Atividade Paranormal:

Esse filme é como se fosse um documentário ( o que lembra bastante o [REC]) sobre as atividades  paranormais que acontece na casa do casal Katie e Micah. Começa com ele comprando uma câmera  para começar a grava todos os fenómenos que começa a ocorrer e a piorar a cada dia , já Katie vai ficando com mais medo a cada dia que chega em um momento crítico dando um final nessa história.

Esse filme é baseado em fatos reais, foi refeito das  fitas originais que se encontram registradas como prova no Departamento de Polícia de San Diego. Mas também pode ser
“fake”

Como já tinha escrito lá em cima ele é estilo um documentário o que lembra o filme [REC], mas também lembra um filme muito mais antigo nesse estilo que seria o filme: A bruxa de Blair, que foi filmado com pouco orçamento e foi um grande sucesso, e tambem traz o “fake” que eu também já escrevi lá em cima, que é quando falam que o filme é real ou foi baseado em história real mas na verdade é tudo uma história criada por roteirista diferente de [REC] que todos sabiam que é fictício. E descobri que esses 3 filmes fazem parte do chamado mockumentary ( um falso documentário) que é um filme gravado como documentário. Nesse momento não tenho grande informações desse genêro de filme mas quando tiver reunido maiores informações farei um post sobre.

Bom, o filme em questão de enredo não é muito bom, mas em questão de dar susto e deixar uma tensão no ar pra isso ele é 10; o filme ainda não estreou no Brasil mas ele já pode ser baixado em alguns sites, mas vale lembra que essa versão pode ser diferente da versão do cinema, como aconteceu com o Tropa de Elite.

O filme estreia dia 04 de dezembro no cinemas, no momento é tudo pessoal tó deixando o trailer e volto em breve com um novo post, até mais.

Trailer

Although I started this blog to keep myself motivated to write, I thought I’d do something a little different and post a video I produced for PerezHilton.com.

It stars Perez, Kim Kardashian, and his new reporter, La Coacha, along with some of my family members. The Borat-style mockumentary follows Coacha through Hollywood’s Little Armenia as she tries to track down Kim for an exclusive interview.

Check it out for some laughs, and if you like it, help spread the word!

Titolo originale: Brüno

Regia: Larry Charles

Cast: Sacha Baron Cohen, Gustaf Hammarsten, Josh Meyers,

Distribuzione: Medusa, USA, 2009

Guarda il trailer

Brüno (Sacha Baron Cohen) è un diciannovenne austriaco dichiaratamente omosessuale  che conduce un programma di moda “Funkyzeit mit Brüno”  in onda a tarda notte sulla tv nazionale e di lingua tedesca, esclusa la Germania. Inviato a Milano durante la settimana della moda, a causa del suo abito interamente in velcro provoca grandissimi danni durante una sfilata e viene cacciato dallo show e bandito dal mondo della moda. Per lui è un dramma in quanto la sua unica aspirazione è quella di diventare famoso. Viene abbandonato da tutti i suoi amici e collaboratore, compreso il suo mini amante asiatico. L’unico che gli resta fedele è Lutz ( Gustaf Hammarsten), l’assistente del suo assistente. I due decidono di partire alla volta degli States per realizzare il sogno del ragazzo. Riuscirà Brüno a diventare world famous?

Sacha Baron Cohen dopo Borat, torna con un altro personaggio molto divertente e decisamente spregiudicato e irriverente: Brüno, diciannovenne pazzo per la moda e per tutto ciò che è trendy, dallo spiccatissimo accento austriaco, che è disposto a tutto pur di diventare famoso. Il ragazzo non ha alcun limite e si cimenterà nelle attività più strane e assurde pur di ottenere il tanto agognato successo. Questa volta “lo studio sociologico” messo in atto dal camaleontico e geniale attore inglese è sulla percezione e sui cliché relativi al mondo degli omosessuali e quindi anche al correlato tema dell’omofobia.  La pellicola alterna momenti di ilarità a momenti più seri durante i quali l’ex presentatore di “Funkyzeit mit Brüno” decide di reinventarsi e di trovare vari escamotages per arrivare il successo, tra i quali adottare un bambino africano, cosa che realizzerà barattando il piccolo chiamato O.J., con un ipod rosso limited edition, o cercando di farsi rapire dal  più pericoloso terrorista libanese provocandolo durante un’intervista dicendogli che “Bin Laden è assolutamente fuori moda con quella barba e che sembra la brutta copia di Babbo Natale”. Una delle varie strade perseguite è anche quella della guarigione dalla sua omosessualità, frequentando un cento apposito e partecipando ad attività prettamente maschili come la caccia. Accanto a lui in questa serie di tentativi il fido Lutz, innamorato di lui, l’unico che crede nelle sue possibilità e nel suo talento.

Cos’altro aggiungere su questa pellicola? E’ sicuramente divertente ma allo stesso tempo, soprattutto in alcune parti, molto, per alcuni troppo, forte. Si ride molto e ci si chiede continuamente dove trovi il protagonista il coraggio e la faccia tosta per girare determinate scene…  Se poi aggiungiamo che alla regia c’è l’irriverente Larry Charles, regista di Borat e  tra l’altro del mockumentary Religiolus-Vedere per credere abbiamo sicuramente un quadro più chiaro circa le cose estreme e spregiudicate presenti nella pellicola.

In definitiva una pellicola divertente, provocatoria a tratti eccessiva con un Baron Cohen sempre al top (la sottoscritta ha apprezzato particolarmente il suo tedesco impeccabile!)

Conclusione: Consigliato a chi ama le provocazioni cinematografiche e non si scandalizza facilmente e soprattutto a chi adora la comicità di Sacha Baron Cohen.

Voto: 7

Some nights, as I sit all cozy in my dorm room, I pretend I’m a killer.

No, really.

I always make sure that I am in front of my television when TruTV’s Forensic Files is on. As I follow the story of how murderers are hunted down, caught, and brought to justice, I imagine how much that must suck to be that killer. Aside from that, it’s so interesting to see how forensic scientists use their fancy equipment and simple footprints, hairs, and paint chips to solve a mystery.

Each episode is 30 minutes long and is a “mockumentary” of real crimes committed across the United States. The episodes do not drag at all, and since they are only 30 minutes each, the pace of the story is very fast. Peter Thomas, who was born to narrate, brings you into a world of “Whudunits.” You follow commentary from medical examiners, coroners, policeman, witnesses, and those directly related to the crime. The re-enactments aren’t cheesy, so you won’t feel like you’re watching an introductory film to a foreign language. If anything, these re-enactments make you wonder how some people can be so twisted and unfortunate.

While I get the most amusement out of the episodes where the bad guys carelessly leave behind evidence, like a gun, fingerprints, or even a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup wrapper tainted with DNA, my favorite episodes are the ones where tiny clues lead police to catch the killer. I never knew what a Reichert Mark II Plus Abbe Refractometer or a Horiba Jobin Yvon Fluorolog-3 spectrofluorometer was before I watched this show. I also never knew the significance of microscopic fibers, but now that I do, I’ll be sure to remove each and every one from my clothing, if I ever have anything to hide.

Get your crime on every Friday night at 10pm, every Saturday at 6-10pm, and every Sunday, Tuesday, and Wednesday at 11pm on TruTV.

With so many days and times, you really can’t miss it.

~ Jamie Kapili

Dir: Shane Meadows, 2009

This is British cinema. Forget your stuffy period dramas, your Guy Ritchie gangster pantomimes, your Richard Curtis comedies – Shane Meadows is one of the few working filmmakers who makes British films. This was most evident in his recent tour-de-force This Is England, and is clear again from latest offering, the mockumentary Le Donk and Scor-Zay-Zee.

Comparisons will inevitably be made with Rob Reiner’s This is Spinal Tap, and this is understandable. Both use a facet of the documentary style, and both feature characters past their prime but deluding themselves otherwise. But This is Spinal Tap (peerless in the genre as it is) was crass, loud and wholly American, whilst Le Donk and Scor-Zay-Zee is a much more subtle, British affair.

The action centres around Le Donk (Paddy Considine), a roadie fast approaching middle age. Le Donk shares a house with rotund white rapper Scor-Zay-Zee, and hopes to get him on stage at an upcoming Arctic Monkeys gig. Recording all of this is filmmaker Shane Meadows (Shane Meadows) and a documentary crew.

Early on, Meadows tries to explain to Le Donk the kind of film he hopes to make, by way of thematic references to his oeuvre. Le Donk agrees wholeheartedly, but it is clear that he has never seen any of Meadows’ work. This underlines the nature of Le Donk’s character: he is all talk. He can rattle your ear off with stories of his past exploits and his expertise in any number of areas, but it’s just a facade, disguising a deep insecurity. We wonder, at first, how such a person could really exist in the world outside the cinema, until we realise that we meet them every day. We may even be sitting next to one.

That is why Meadows’ film works. It’s characters, regardless of their fictionality, their position as artistic constructs, are entirely grounded in reality. As unlikely as the premise (and, indeed, outcome) may seem, the characters, being only mirrors held up to ourselves, help lend the kind of plausibility often lacking in the genre.

And, of course, the film is very funny. Reportedly shot over a five day period, the dialogue is entirely improvised. The cast and crew cannot help but guffaw at some of Le Donk’s more ludicrous antics, most notably his bizarre backing vocals to Scor-Zay-Zee’s performance. There is also firm support from a very pregnant Olivia Colman (on loan from Peep Show) as Le Donk’s estranged girlfriend, as well as real-life producer Mark Herbert and several honest-to-God roadies.

And, of course, there’s Scor-Zay-Zee. He is something of a find in himself: a surprisingly talented rapper, he also displays finely tuned comic timely, especially is a scene where Le Donk reveals his intimate side. Naive, quiet and modest, he is the perfect foil to Le Donk’s own brand of boisterous bravado.

Le Donk and Scor-Zay-Zee has a lot in common with Meadows previous film, Somers Town. Both are short, unassuming character studies which reveal something about Britain not often seen in the cinema. It may not have the same scope or ambition as some of Meadows’ earlier work, but this is still miles better than anything Richard Curtis has churned out.

O grande trunfo de “Atividade Paranormal” é também a sua maior fraqueza. Explico: o filme busca simular um fenômeno paranormal real na vida de um casal normal. Para tanto, vale-se do estilo mockumentário (aqueles documentários fake tipo “Bruxa De Blair”, “[Rec]” ou “Cloverfield”). Nas cenas noturnas, com a câmera fixa no quarto, a coisa toda funciona que é uma beleza. O medo surge das insignificâncias de uma porta que se fecha ou de uma lufada de vento espiritual que invade os lençóis. O problema é que, para cada noite, existe um dia. E à luz do dia, as falhas se tornam visíveis. O casal de atores é fraquinho que só eles. Não convence. Não transmite naturalidade nos diálogos (muitos deles forçados, como no caso da briguinha de casal). É possível perceber as saídas exageradas do roteiro em busca de situações filmáveis que sejam minimamente interessantes. A solução final (da versão que eu vi) é questionável, mas ainda assim penso ser melhor do que o final que veremos nos cinemas (e que obviamente cria um gancho para uma continuação). Outra adição fraquíssima, beirando a charlatonice total, é a inclusão do psíquico-medium-expert-etc-e-tal. Além do ator ser fraco pra burro, o personagem também o é. A segunda vinda, como aquele papo de “ah, eu não posso ficar aqui”, foi o maior despropósito de todo o filme. Ok, eu sei que o diretor fez tudo com 15 mil doletas, e que criar medo com isso é uma mérito e coisa e tal, mas o hype não se justifica. O filme cansa. Até pode assustar, de quando em quando. Mas cansa demais pra medo de menos. Sou bem mais “A Bruxa De Blair”. Mantém-se autêntico. E chegou primeiro.

(Paranormal Activity – 2007) - Trailer
Direção: Oren Peli
Roteiro: Oren Peli
Elenco: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs

Finally, and at long last…

Here is the first trailer for “Trailer: The Movie.” The temporary score is “Crawl,” by Kings of Leon. Please send comments and let us know what you think of it.

I put it together over the last week or so, choosing the one style of trailer we didn’t exploit in the film itself – the all-music trailer. Adam provided creative input and general notes during the process.

For those who don’t know, the film has been submitted to numerous film festivals. As of now, we’ve not heard back one way or another. We’re hopeful, while also realizing that a 45 minute “short” might not work with some festivals’ programs.

Find out more about the film, including updates about film festivals, bios, and production diaries at http://www.trailerthemovie.com/

On Sunday, I went to the movies with my five guy friends. Three of them had to take their sweet time getting there so by the time they arrived, the only movie that hadn’t already started and was about fifteen minutes in was Paranormal Activity. So we decided to go watch it since it was the one movie not already started though we had never heard anything about it. If you want to go into the film and shit your pants, then don’t read this, because I’m gonna point out random stuff that might take away from it. This is SPOILERS GALORE.

Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
Director: Oren Peli
Written By: Oren Peli
Year: 2007
Genre: Horror, Mockumentary
Run Time: 86 min.

So, I went into this movie thinking it was going to be some average movie in actual movie-style where some people are dealing with paranormal stuff. But, I was wrong. It was filmed with a normal camera (much like the Blair Witch Project. If you haven’t heard of it, get off the internet now). So, I was thinking then, “wow, this is gonna be some lame people about people trying to find paranormal stuff” and thus I thought it was probably a real documentary. And then, I was wrong again when I realized that when they brought the psychic there that it was just a staged movie because Katie, one of the main characters, was being stalked by a demon. So, I thought then it’s possible this was one of those ‘based on a true story but just sort of hollywood-ed up’ (which it isn’t but it could have been, you know). And, Paranormal Activity turned out to be one of the creepiest movies I ever watched.

Taken, I’m not much of a watch horror movies kind of gal, but I’m not scared easily either. And, though I wasn’t out right scared of any parts (the one part I actually jumped at there was just complete silence in both movie and theater and my friend next to me made some creepy noise and bumped me, causing me to jump and whack him), there where many parts that creeped me out. And, I’m pretty sure if I was watching it alone, I would have been scared.

What makes Paranormal Activity what can be called scary is the fact it’s done all on an average non-hollywood camera. They apparently didn’t have a camera crew and just filmed it in director’s own home. And the story had no actual script to it, the actors just being told what was the general thing going on and running with it (which could be the reason they used their real names in the film, so they can ad-lib without having to think about character names). The normal camera feel, especially with the characters being the ones to carry it around or when it’s on the tripod, gives it such a realistic feel. That you can believe this is happening. Another thing that makes it scary is the fact they’re in a normal setting: their home. They’re just an average every day couple in San Diego in your average house who just happen to have a demon haunting the girl (it’s important to note it’s the girl, not the house).

Ultimately, what makes it really scary is the fact you never physically see the demon. You will hear it, see its shadow, see its footprints, but never actually see any physical entity of it. And that’s what makes it a real horror flick. Unlike a lot of horror movies where you eventually see the cause of all the scaring, you never see the demon itself. The only time it has a physical form is when it possesses Katie near the end of the film.

And just so everyone knows: this idea of the demon really being Katie’s friend/sister (it’s not quite stated what she is, though it mentions Katie has a sister so that is a possibility) and/or Dr. Fredrichs and/or the demonologist (who is never even shown on-screen) is bullshit. People are reading way too into it.

If things are out of order, I apologize. I can’t remember the exact order all events happen in.

The movie timeline spans about three weeks. The story starts with Micah playing with his camera that he just got so he can document this so-called demon. Much of the film has him carrying it around and trying to catch the demon on film. We have a psychic (Dr. Fredrichs) who comes by to tell them that it is a demon, not a ghost, and it isn’t his area of expertise so he gives them the number of a demonologist. Micah insists he can deal with the demon himself (Micah’s mistake #1) and tells Katie not to call the demonologist, which she does though this leads to many arguments between the couple (well, that and the fact Micah loves his camera). Micah sets up the camera on a tripod in their bedroom so he can record what happens when they sleep.

The first signs of a demon we get are noises, though nothing really radical. One morning the couple wake up and Katie finds her keys are on the floor in the kitchen, though she always leaves them on the counter next to Micah’s wallet. Other strange occurrences start to happen, such as the door half-closing, then opening again, on its own. Or Katie getting up in the middle of the night and just standing there for hours before ultimately going outside and sitting on their porch. When Micah attempts to get her back inside, she refuses so he goes in to get her a blanket but hears noises upstairs in their room. So he goes to investigate only to find the tv on, showing static. Katie suddenly happens in the doorway behind him, confused and having no recollection of going outside.

Over time, Micah starts to try communicating with the demon (Micah’s mistake #2), going so far as to get Ouija board, which Katie got made at him for and the couple then leave the house for hours. While they are gone, the Ouija board seems to work on its own before suddenly lighting on fire though it quickly goes out before the pair make it home. Micah investigates this to try and figure out what was said on the Ouija board, coming up with a few names. Eventually he finds a website with a girl named Diane (one of the names he found) who had the exact same things happen to her that are happening to Katie, which resulted in death before the exorcist could assist her.

Other things happen during the night, such as the door slamming shut (one just occurrence includes the door slamming shut and banging and yelling happening on the other side), lights flicking on and off and more noises. Micah begins to get frustrated as Katie gets more scared so he yells at the demon, calling it out (Micah’s mistake #3). This proves to only piss it off even more, as seen that during the day, a loud noise is heard from upstairs. When they go to find out what happened, a picture of the two of them is completely cracked over Micah’s face with a long scratch on him in the actual photo. More of Micah’s attempts to figure out what’s going on includes him pouring baby powder on the floor. At night, footprints are seen coming into the room (as well as a shadow passes over the door) before leaving and going into their storage closet down the hall. When they go to investigate, Katie is traumatized to find the attic doorway open (suggesting it lives in the attic). Micah goes in to investigate and finds a burnt photo of Katie as a young girl, which should have been destroyed when the house she lived in as a child burned down (also the house where she first encountered the demon).

They call Dr. Fredrichs back but he immediately leaves because he can feel the negative energy in the house and that he’s only making it worse. Katie attempts to call the demonologist though he is now out of town, symbolizing there is now no hope for them. That night, the demon forcibly drags Katie out of bed and down the hall to the closet though Micah manages to save her in time.

Katie is now distraught and wants to leave the house. Micah makes plans to do so, also finding Katie sitting, clutching a crucifix so tightly her hand bleeds. Frustrated and angry, Micah burns the crucifx (Micah’s mistake #4, which probably brought about his demise). Once he’s ready, he goes upstairs and tells Katie that they’re leaving. Though she was distraught before, she’s suddenly calm now and insists on staying, which frustrates Micah even more but he stays with her at the house. (After speaking with her, he leaves the camera on the bed and when he leaves the room, you can see Katie smile. At this point, you now know Katie is possessed by the demon).

The next night is ultimately their last. Katie wakes up and stands on her side of the bed for a while. The sheets over Micah get dragged off by invisible hands. Katie goes and stands over him, watching him for hours before she goes downstairs. She begins screaming and yelling, causing Micah to wake up and go downstairs. He begins screaming too; then suddenly there is silence.

The film can split off at this point into three endings.

Ending #1) This is the ending that was only shown at one viewing I believe. The director later decided it was too gory compared to the rest of the film that had absolutely no gore in it. This ending has Katie come back upstairs and slit her own throat in front of the camera.

Ending #2) The theatrical ending, which is the one I actually watched. There is silence after the struggle downstairs for what seems like a long time. Then you hear the footsteps of the demon coming upstairs. And then Micah’s body is thrown at the camera. What scares you about that is that his body suddenly appears to be thrown from the doorway but you don’t see his body coming upstairs. This is almost like the demon getting back at Micah, throwing him at the camera that he used to mock it with. Then Katie appears in the doorway. She’s covered in blood at this point, showing she must have killed Micah. She drops to the ground and crawls to Micah’s body (sniffing or licking it) before smiling at the camera. Her face contorts and she lunges at it. It ends with subtitles saying Micah’s body was later found but Katie’s whereabouts remain a mystery.

Ending #3) The original ending and what some consider the true ending. It has Katie come back upstairs and sit by the bed, rocking back and forth. Her friend comes over and finds Micah’s body downstairs. The police arrives and come upstairs. As they come up the stairs, Katie seems to be herself again (the light to the room with the attic even goes on then off as if saying the demon has returned to the attic). The door suddenly slams shut behind the police, causing them to shoot Katie.

I only actually watched the second ending, but I heard many people like the original one the best, though it’s a little anti-climatic. In each ending though, the demon gets what it wants: Micah obviously dead and getting Katie’s soul as she dies in each one (or she’s at least assumed dead in the theatrical release as her body is never found so the demon probably walked off in it).

All in all, it’s a good movie. Just don’t watch it by yourself.

Characters of Importance

Micah: I consider him the main main character as he’s the one you see the most and almost always have the camera. He’s trying to document the haunting of his girlfriend as well as stop it.
Katie: Micah’s girlfriend who’s being haunted by a demon.
The Demon: self-explanatory, really.

The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle (1980) es un documental de ficción  (“mockumentary”) dirigido por Julien Temple y producido por Don Boyd y Jeremy Thomas sobre la banda inglesa de punk rock los “Sex Pistols”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rock_%27n%27_Roll_Swindle

#1 – Chris Christophers

Mr. Christophers is a 28 year-old graduate film student looking to create the next great documentary. After multiple rejections for some catchy, but non-commercial documentary topics — see the failure to launch list below — Chris is approached by a wealthy film financier with funding and an idea. This financier’s name is Burt Pepper (see character # 2)

While Chris doesn’t necessarily agree with the financier’s topic, it does provide a needed source of funding to kick-start his film career. His prior career was as an adult film star and he is very embarrassed by this. No one in his immediate family knows about this dark embarrassing past, but with the advent of free porn sites, he is becoming more and more recognized. Christophers has disproportionately large calve muscles. To the point where viewers would be distracted by them during his love making scenes.

To this end, Chris has grown a beard as well as let his hair to just above his shoulders both to avoid the likelihood of being recognized as well as to be a dead ringer for Peter Jackson (Lord of Ring’s Peter Jackson) and increase his credibility from an appearance stand point. He has not worn shorts for 3 years and has to wear boot cut jeans because of his physical freakishness.

His inner need is to break free from his “artistic past” and feel better about himself and his future contributions to the world. Outwardly, he wants to present a high production value documentary, or as he calls them “global statements,” to his audiences.

Project’s that Christophers couldn’t get funding for:
• Big Tobacco’s response to the Surgeon General titled “Smoke on This!”
• “Taking the Physical Challenge: The Parallels of Jesus Christ and Game Show Host Mark Summers”
• “Bang the Bubble Softly: The Evolution of Trouble (and other Milton Bradley Games)”

Desde que descobri as maravilhas de The Office, no final do ano passado, presto atenção em qualquer comédia no estilo documental. Foi por isto que eu comecei a assistir a Modern Family quando a série foi lançada, em setembro último, pela emissora ABC norte-americana. Não me arrependi nem um pouco.

A série conta a história de três famílias disfuncionais. A premissa não é mesmo nada demais. Mas com atores como aqueles e um texto bem afiado, cheio de situações absurdas e episódios muito bem amarrados, é difícil resistir.

Aqui vai a indicação acompanhada de um trecho da série. Experimente:

Photographed by Lee Jenkins in London

Sir Ian is going back to school…or he will be pending the ever-finicky U.K./U.S. buyers.

One of the most adorable and accomplished actors of all time is set to star in a new mockumentary series as the fictional Murray McKellen, Sir Ian’s little bro that heads up a failing drama school (Murray is McKellen’s real middle name). Production has begun on six episodes, but if it doesn’t get picked up soon the producers could risk a major conflict with McKellen’s schedule ::cough The Hobbit cough::

I’m rooting for some major Gervais-style humor along the lines of McKellen’s brilliant guest role on Extras.

Hopefully, I will get to see this show on BBC America at the very least. Until then I am prepping for the awesome that will be McKellen’s portrayal of Number Two in AMC’s The Prisoner (starting November 15th).

[via Variety] [Image via Out Magazine]

I just watched the documentary about the heavy metal band “Anvil” titled “The Story Of Anvil“.

It was a fun movie. It’s like a real life “This Is Spinal Tap” (which is a “mockumentary”, or mock documentary, about a fake heavy metal band called “Spinal Tap”).

Anyways, I knew the Canadian heavy metal band Anvil in the ’80s. But I was never really a big fan of theirs.
Actually I had totally forgotten about Anvil for the past twenty-some years…until this movie was released last month.
But Japanese fans are famous for being dedicated for life. This documentary about Anvil begins with the band playing at a heavy metal festival in Japan in the mid-80s, and then it shows how they struggled for nearly three decades in obscurity in their small hometown in Canada…until they were offered the chance in 2006 to return to Japan and play at the LoudPark ‘06 heavy metal festival in front of a huge Japanese crowd again.

The behavior of the members of Anvil in this documentary makes me think that maybe “This Is Spinal Tap” is inspired by Anvil…even though the Spinal Tap mockumentary was released in the mid-80s.

For example, in the Spinal Tap movie, one member of that band changed the numbers on his amplifier so that the maximum volume read “11″ rather than “10″, and he thought that that made it louder than other amps.
And in the Anvil movie, the guitarist’s amplifier also goes up to eleven.

Also, the Spinal Tap band went to “Stonehenge” and were inspired by it and decided to add a giant 18-foot prop Stonehenge to their stage…but a misunderstanding led the prop to be designed at only 18 inches tall.
And in their movie, Anvil also went to “Stonehenge” for inspiration.

Another similarity between the two movies is that both bands struggled to become successful, often playing in front of audiences of less than six people…until they learned how popular they were in Japan.

And an usual coincidence is that “This Is Spinal Tap” was directed by Rob Reiner…and the drummer of Anvil is named Robb Reiner.

I’m convinced. Anvil is the real Spinal Tap.

Here’s the official trailer for “The Story Of Anvil“:

And here’s the scene from “This Is Spinal Tap” where the guitarist is convinced that having “11″ written on the amp makes it louder:

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

Slasher films, a horror movie sub-genre, have devolved far beyond cliché. They are so narrow in there premises and void of originality that many seemingly follow the same screenplay in a different setting and on the surface different characters. There are only about five or six of these films I would consider good movies and only one or two of which I would call truly original for their time. In other words, basically all slasher films are directly influenced by one or two movies. A mockumentary on this subject is an obvious choice and a great idea. But there are far too many hardcore slasher movie fans and unfortunately for Behind the Mask one of them became its director and lost grip of what should’ve been the film’s goals.

Scene from the movie

Taylor is a documentary filmmaker who meets a wannabe murderer named Leslie. Leslie knows all the ins and out of how to become a legend like Freddy Kreuger, Jason Vorhees, and Michael Myers. Taylor is going to be allowed to document his plan to murder one specific group of kids. Leslie goes over explanations for all the clichés in slasher movies and indicates many clichés as his kind of unexplained goals, and he even explains a few in comedic detail. These are the best parts of Behind the Mask and act as a solid commentary toward the dying sub-genre.

Murder scene from Behind the Mask

I have many issues with this film but mainly my problem is that the premise fails to mock and instead turns into a slasher film itself. It seems to have fun laughing at how ludicrous slasher movies are and then essentially becomes a celebration of them and in an instant goes the opposite direction I thought the movie wanted to go. I went from thinking this was a unique movie by a smart filmmaker to thinking it was less than mediocre and directed by nothing more than a fan of slasher films. Another related issue I had with Behind the Mask is that it was predictable when the film transitioned toward the end, and it definitely shouldn’t have been. When Wes Craven created the satire of slasher films Scream, it surprisingly worked because we suddenly realized that the film is far more intelligent than the subject of its satire. Behind the Mask is by no means smarter than its subject. It actually becomes its subject.

Also, my biggest gripe of all is the acting of Nathan Baesel. I think it was important that his performance work and for me it didn’t. I thought his performance was overdone and too enthusiastic, especially his interactions with Eugene, a retired slasher legend who also talks about murdering as if it is a science. Director Scott Glosserman is accountable for the film’s performances as well but these people are new so I’m sure we will see more quality from them down the road. Behind the Mask, at the very least does showcase talent from some of those involved. At least more so than I Still Know What You Did Last Summer or Jason Goes to Hell.

Leslie Vernon

It was recommended to me by my brother, who appreciates slasher films and even said to me that I have to like slashers to like Behind the Mask. He was absolutely right. I love horror films and the slasher sub-genre to me has betrayed real horror and negatively effected the quality of horror films we see made today. So I guess I don’t like slasher films overall. Take my brother’s advice here and don’t bother if you thought Friday the 13th parts 3 through whatever were lame. If you like slasher films you will appreciate Behind the Mask as a celebration of the sub-genre. It just doesn’t work beyond that.

My rating is 2 out of 5 stars.

Titolo originale: Paranormal Activity

Regia: Oren Peli

Cast:  Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs, Amber Armstrong, Randy McDowell, Ashley Palmer, Tim Piper.

Distribuzione: Paramount Pictures, USA, 2007

Guarda il trailer

Katie (Katie Featherston) e Micah (Micah Sloat), sono una giovane coppia come tante. Quando alcuni strani ed inquietanti  fenomeni iniziano ad aver luogo nella loro casa, decidono di piazzare delle telecamere nelle varie stanze per cercare di fare chiarezza sulla loro natura. Scopriranno una verità agghiacciante…

Questa pellicola rappresenta un vero caso negli States. Costata solo 17.000 dollari, scritta e girata dal regista Oren Peli a casa sua con attori semisconosciuti, solo durante il primo weekend di programmazione ha incassato ben 40 milioni di dollari, nonostante sia stato programmato in un numero di sale molto limitato e anche in questa settimana ha mantenuto il primo posto nella classifica dei film più visti nei cinema americani.

La ricetta è semplicissima e ricalca in molti aspetti The Blair Witch Project, pellicola di grandissimo successo del 1999. Si prende una storia spaventosa di presenze demoniache e paranormali e la si spaccia come vera, adducendo a prova un filmato originale che mostra tale presunta agghiacciante verità. Il successo è assicurato, grazie anche al passaparola tra i giovani e alla festività di Halloween che ben si sposa con questo genere di pellicole.

In questo mockumentary vediamo una giovane coppia alle prese con alcuni strani fenomeni che si svolgono nella loro casa. Katie sostiene che si tratti di una presenza demoniaca che la perseguita sin da bambina, Micah invece ironizza e propone alla ragazza di filmare ciò che avviene nella casa per cercare di capire di cosa si tratti. Ben presto l’ironia e l’incredulità di Micah si trasformeranno in terrore puro, che si impossesserà anche dello spettatore. Si dice che lo stesso Steven Spielberg abbia interrotto la visione del film a metà perché troppo spaventato e l’abbia terminata solo in un secondo momento, consigliando poi al regista di modificare il finale, consiglio accolto e seguito da Peli.

Senza dubbio il tam tam mediatico relativo a The Blair Witch Project era stato più forte e si era giocato molto sulla fantomatica veridicità della storia e del filmato, mentre in questo caso la non veridicità del filmato e della storia è stata già ampiamente sdoganata. Tuttavia bisogna ammettere che questa pellicola è davvero inquietante e spaventosa, come non se ne vedevano da un po’, anche grazie  al fatto che gli attori siano praticamente sconosciuti e abbiano la faccia dei classici ragazzi della porta accanto.
In Italia purtroppo bisognerà aspettare i primi mesi del 2010 per vederlo.

In definitiva una pellicola assolutamente da non perdere, per provare reali momenti di paura.

Conclusione: Da vedere.

Voto: 8

- Brüno – 2009 – ♥ e 1\2 -

di

Larry Charles

Si fa di tutto pur di riconquistare la fama e il successo. Anche cambiare orientamento sessuale se si è gay. Soprattutto poi se ci si trova negli Stati Uniti: la patria del successo slegato però da ogni sua caratteristica artistica e maggiormente incentrato nell’ apparire e nell’ essere politically correct. Questo è l’ intento di Larry Charles e del talento ironico di Sacha Baron Cohen che dopo aver decisamente sorpreso con l’ esilarante Borat ritorna nei panni di un gay austriaco modaiolo, licenziato dai media del suo paese, e deciso ad emigrare negli States alla ricerca di gloria. Ma guardando questo film viene più da pensare che il successo di Borat sia stato soprattutto sfruttato e copiato che valorizzato e rimodellato ai fini di un’ altra causa. Anche in questo caso è sempre il sistema americano ad essere sotto accusa. Il suo showbiz incentrato sul falso perbenismo, le discriminazioni nei confronti degli omosessuali e le ancora presenti discriminazioni razziali di colore presenti anche nei programmi televisivi. Ma che senso aveva trattare tutto questo in 80 lunghissimi minuti colmi di scene di pseudosesso omosessuale inconsueto o di comportamenti eccentrici, irriverenti del suo protagonista? In questo caso il plot è decisamente slegato e fatto di scene fini a se stesse, più televisive in stile real tv che cinematografiche. La forza di Borat stava tutta nel contrasto tra mondo occidentale e mondo sottosviluppato dell’ est. Qui il confine era molto più sottile trattandosi Bruno di un personaggio estremamente occidentalizzato, anche se all’ ennesima potenza e privo di ogni inibizione. E per fare questo non basta copiare le linee drammaturgiche di Borat (anche Bruno viaggia in America con il suo assistente, solo che questa volta se ne innamora anzichè lottar con lui sul letto nudo). Non basta enfatizzare al massimo scene di sesso scabroso per scandalizzare o inquadrare tutto come approccio cinematografico modernista. La settima arte cinematografica credo abbia molto più bisogno di sofisticatezza e di cura nei dettagli sceneggiativi  che di grossolane esibizioni di irriverenza sessuale. Brüno pretende di essere un mockumentary ma non risulta assolutamente credibile come tale, poichè è inverosimile che la stessa scena venga ripresa da più di una telecamera. E non bastano nemmeno le lodi tessute a Sacha Baron Cohen da parte del re della commedia demenziale Mel Brooks per salvare il giovane attore trasformista dalla sua prestazione in questo suo ultimo film. Perchè un comico bisogna anche che si rinnovi ed evolva. Non basta limitarsi a scopiazzare sempre personaggi simili irriverenti e libertini sessualmente per essere definito un comico completo. Serve un talento artistico ben più complesso. Speriamo che Baron Cohen possa capirlo.

(Uno dei tentativi di Bruno di arrivare al successo: 

Abbassarsi i pantaloni davanti ad un senatore repubblicano)

(Ennesimo tentativo: Adottare un bambino africano come ha fatto Angelina Jolie)

]]> http://neobar.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/la-raccolta-degli-spaghetti/ Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:34:26 +0000 neobar http://neobar.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/la-raccolta-degli-spaghetti/

Il primo aprile del 1957 la BBC trasmetteva un documentario sulla “raccolta” degli spaghetti in Svizzera spiegando la differenza con quanto succede di solito in Italia. Un bel pesce d’aprile visto che molti presero sul serio il programma.

1957: Spaghetti fools
Not everybody was amused by the BBC’s famous spaghetti harvest documentary. Hundreds of people called the corporation after the broadcast asking where they could get hold of a spaghetti bush so they could grow their own crop.
And many viewers – including BBC staff – who had been taken in by the Panorama April Fool criticised the use of a serious factual programme to make an elaborate joke. But the broadcast, which showed a Swiss family harvesting spaghetti from trees, has gone down as one of the best April Fools of all time.

Your memories of the spaghetti spoof:

My late mother was always fascinated by this spoof. We never had real spaghetti at home-only the sort in tin seemed to be available for quite a while after the war – but her favourite tale was always the “spaghetti trees” and how everyone believed the documentary, because Mr Dimbleby was on it !! Well done BBC. Classic April 1st.
J Hall, UK

I was 11 when this was broadcast but I knew it was a spoof even though we never ate spaghetti. I can’t really understand how people were taken in by it. I still, however, think it was a nice idea for April 1st.
Tania Goldman, Israel

I was 13 at the time and my parents had just rented our very first black and white TV. We still found it a novelty and watched nearly all the programmes to the detriment of our school homework. I’d never eaten spaghetti at the time and when the footage came on of the Italians harvesting the long tubes of spaghetti I was stunned. It was only a few days later when people were talking about the clever spoof that I realised how well I had been fooled. It was a bitter disappointment.
Maggie Cainen, Wales

When this was broadcast I was just eight years old and – of course – believed everything I was told or saw on the television. The TV was a bit of a novelty for my family in 1957 and I had no reason then to disbelieve this new and amazing media. My problem was that for years and years afterwards I believed that spaghetti grew on trees. It wasn’t until many years later when I was in my late teens that I realised this was perhaps not the case and even now at 56 I’m hopeful of spotting one or two trees as I drive around the country and the continent.
Tony Frost, England

Yes I remember – my girlfriend Jill would not talk to me for a week as she insisted that pasta really grew on trees and I told her she was absolutely silly to think that. I still think about it and am now 62.
Mary McCusker, USA

I remember it very well and still recall sitting there watching it quite happily until towards the end there was mention of, I think, Macaroni trees showing the twisted macaroni hanging from the branches and suddenly realising I had been well and truly had. What really helped the Beeb to get away with it was the dulcet tones of Richard Dimbleby in his solid, state funeral tones.
Malcolm Ross, UK

The so-called Mockumentary is a fictional film which imitates the style of a non-fiction documentary, often passing itself off as such in a tongue-in-cheek manner. The term mockumentary entered the public lexicon with Rob Reiner’s This Is Spinal Tap, although the approach had been used far earlier. The mockumentary form alludes to the constructed, non-objective nature of many straight documentary films, and the blurring line between fiction and non-fiction.

Mockumentary: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-mockumentary.htm

Mockumentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary

List of Mockumentaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mockumentaries

An early BBC news broadcast April Fools hoax:
Swiss Spaghetti Harvest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/144000/bb/144567_16×9_bb.asx?ad=1&ct=50

Victoria Wood As Seen On TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLyLkwzK-bM

This Is Spinal Tap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZbHagBNY98

Situation-Comedey in the mock style:
The Office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office

F For Fake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zZNFzrvAA&feature=PlayList&p=4D257A49267A7E8A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

Blair Witch Project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfnXbXKi2-s

Borat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btd5Ex3edmk

Borat Lawsuits: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0437222820071205

The lunar landing was staged!
Dark Side of the Moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ge8KiaWTA

Woody Allen: Zelig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUW8JsLDsNo

Before Spinal Tap, there was:
All You Need is Cash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-3MT1p4RvY

The False Document: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_document

Alternate Reality Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game

Baudrillard: Simulacra & Simulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Simulation & Simulacra on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=9Z9biHaoLZIC&dq=Simulacra+and+Simulation&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=zAXaSu3tMYXiNfryyOMH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I need to play catch-up again. This post includes some rambling about RSS readers, some complaining about which stories are declared news and then beaten into our eyeballs and eardrums until we scream, and a movie spoiler. Click through and enjoy.

Over 200 unread items

A Feed Reader For My Life

I am a huge fan of Google Reader and similar services . I keep somewhat up-to-date with 201 blogs (yeah, seriously) instead of always-completely-up-to-date with only a few. I scan the headlines every morning and decide what is interesting. I used to worry about going through every feed and skimming every headline. Nowadays, if I don’t get through everything, I mark it all as read the next morning, except for what’s new in the last 24 hours.

Lately I’ve been thinking about how great it would be to have a similar service to use with life in general. I would love to skim headlines like “need to do laundry” and “have to go grocery shopping.” A feed reader for my adult responsibilities would leave me with more time to spend with Meg and visiting my parents more often and, oh, I don’t know, blogging. Of course, lacking time to read over headlines like “need to do laundry” would result in an attempt to “mark all as read” and I’d probably be left walking around in dirty clothes. But the principal, at least in my mind, is sound.

Stupid News

Let’s move on, though. I want to say that I hope the parents of “balloon boy” are heavily fined and the fact that they may face jail time kind of makes me smirk. The fact that we watched and read about this crap for a week makes me sick, considering that I don’t think I saw a single front-page headline or extended television segment about the National Equality March for equal rights for LGBT citizens.

The protest was organized by 20- and 30-somethings with the help of Cleve Jones, found of the AIDS Memorial Quilt project and a friend of assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk. Incidentally, Milk and I share a birthday, and California recently declared May 22 “Harvey Milk Day.”

Anyway, once we learned it the balloon boy crap was a sham, coverage should have stopped until charges were filed. Or at least coverage should not have resembled the round-the-clock carnival that followed Princess Diana’s death or OJ Simpson’s arrest.

A Movie

I’m going to make this one quick. Paranormal Acitivty, a mockumentary about demonic haunting and possession, is in theaters now and I caught it yesterday with Meg a couple of friends. The title has been trending all over Twitter and most of the mentions have, unfortunately, been positive.  Let me offer a spoiler to those who are interested. I will tell you what happens:

Nothing.

Nothing at all. The movie mixes up haunting and possession, drops the ball on what could be an interesting back story, and essentially ends where a good movie would typically begin. If cheesey pretzels did not exist, and I was not so in the dark about where to buy some outside of movie theaters, the trip would have been a total loss. Consider yourself warned.

That’s it.

I was more than a little hesitant to buy into the hype surrounding the recent horror flick, Paranormal Activity. A faux documentary based on footage recorded by Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston (fictionalized versions of the actors portraying them). It tells the story of three weeks in the couple’s life as they are threatened by a terrifying paranormal force they struggle to both comprehend and eliminate.

The film has no title card, nor opening or closing credits. We read, instead, that Paramount wishes to thank the Sloat and Featherston Families, as well as the San Diego Police Department, for allowing them to release the footage in this manner. It’s a chilling way to begin and dashes any hopes of a happy ending, but as is the case with some of the best movies out there, we aren’t here to find out what happened to the characters, but why and how.

Those who are fans of violence or gore will definitely be disappointed, but true horror need not offer anything more than suggestion or unsettling imagery and this is a great example of ‘less is more’–especially considering it was made on a budget of only $15,000. And even if Paranormal Activity doesn’t push the right buttons to scare you, it still offers the brave a brilliantly assembled indie film that’s sure to stay with you in one way or another.

This is one you won’t want to miss. Check out the trailer below.